M/S ENRIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

2 70 (A). The AO has no where justified how the appellants case would not fall under section Sub section (6) to section 270A while levying penalty by invoking sub section (9) of section 270(A). 9. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that appellant has admitted a consolidated sum of Rs.113.99 Crores over the Financial Years

M/S ENRICE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

2 70 (A). The AO has no where justified how the appellants case would not fall under section Sub section (6) to section 270A while levying penalty by invoking sub section (9) of section 270(A). 9. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that appellant has admitted a consolidated sum of Rs.113.99 Crores over the Financial Years

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

2) of the Act. In the\nabsence of any such transgression arriving at a conclusion that the\nAppellant has under-reported income is erroneous. Further the AO in the\nassessment order has not made any findings as to how the Appellant has\nmisrepresented or suppressed the facts.\n6.5.5 In fact, the AO in the assessment order has simply narrated that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

2) of the Act. In the\nabsence of any such transgression arriving at a conclusion that the\nAppellant has under-reported income is erroneous. Further the AO in the\nassessment order has not made any findings as to how the Appellant has\nmisrepresented or suppressed the facts.\n6.5.5 In fact, the AO in the assessment order has simply narrated that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

2) of the Act. In the\nabsence of any such transgression arriving at a conclusion that the\nAppellant has under-reported income is erroneous. Further the AO in the\nassessment order has not made any findings as to how the Appellant has\nmisrepresented or suppressed the facts.\n6.5.5 In fact, the AO in the assessment order has simply narrated that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

2) of the Act. In the\nabsence of any such transgression arriving at a conclusion that the\nAppellant has under-reported income is erroneous. Further the AO in the\nassessment order has not made any findings as to how the Appellant has\nmisrepresented or suppressed the facts.\n6.5.5 In fact, the AO in the assessment order has simply narrated that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

2) of the Act. In the\nabsence of any such transgression arriving at a conclusion that the\nAppellant has under-reported income is erroneous. Further the AO in the\nassessment order has not made any findings as to how the Appellant has\nmisrepresented or suppressed the facts.\n6.5.5 In fact, the AO in the assessment order has simply narrated that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

2) of the Act. In the\nabsence of any such transgression arriving at a conclusion that the\nAppellant has under-reported income is erroneous. Further the AO in the\nassessment order has not made any findings as to how the Appellant has\nmisrepresented or suppressed the facts.\n6.5.5 In fact, the AO in the assessment order has simply narrated that

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

disallowance of Rs.42,29,48,758/- by the Ld.CIT(A) which was made by the Ld.AO invoking provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. It was contested that the addition by the Ld.AO was based upon an arbitrary application of Rule-11UA of the Income Tax Rules. 3.0 During the course of present proceedings, the Ld.Counsel

KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

2)A person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if— (a)the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b)the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been furnished

ARUSUVAI FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

disallowances under Section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be ‘misreporting’. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub- section (9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence

GATEWAY OFFICE PARKS PRIOVATE LIMITEDI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CICLE-6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

270A for the said previous year.\nExplanation.—For the purposes of this clause, —\n(a) the fair market value of the shares shall be the value-\n(i) as may be determined in accordance with such method as may be prescribed; or\n(ii) as may be substantiated by the company to the satisfaction of the Assessing\nOfficer, based

N. VIJAY KUMAR, ACIT, CHENNAI vs. RAJAH MUTHIAH CHETTIAR CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue & CO of assessee are

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowances under Section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be ‘misreporting’. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence

KAWARILAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CRICLE-1(2) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowances under Section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be ‘misreporting’. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub- section (9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence

KAWARILAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowances under Section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be ‘misreporting’. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub- section (9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence

JAYASAKTHI KNIT WEAR,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TIRUPPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1758/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Jayasakthi Knit Wear, The Ito, 3/95, Thanneerpandal Colony, Ward-1(4), Cheyur Road, Tirupur. Karukkampalayam B.O. Avinashi, Tirupur-641 654. [Pan: Aaffj 4343 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowances under Section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be ‘misreporting’. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence

M/S. AVM PRODUCTIONS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-20(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

disallowance of depreciation which is an earlier issue and this cannot be concluded as misreporting or under reporting and no limb of section 270A can be attracted and thus Notice of penalty be dropped. The submission made by assessee is considered, however, it is not acceptable as the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of AO for denial

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

disallow the claim of gift. The Ld.CIT(A) had reasoned out that\nthe assessee's brother had given a letter stating the fact of the gift and that stands as\nan evidence to show that gifts are indeed made. In our view, this is acceptable. At any\nrate, we find that the AO never brought out any material to disprove

MELAKANDY PUTHALATH FAROOK,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1890/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Melekandy Puthalath Farook Acit बनाम/ Faraz No.9 Sbi Colony, Corporate Circle-2(1) Vs. Sastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapf-2644-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr

2), New Delhi and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 5111/2022 vide judgment dated 28.03.2022 observed as under:- “6. Having perused the impugned order dated 9th March, 2022, this Court is of the view that the Respondents’ action of denying the benefit of immunity on the ground that the penalty was initiated under Section 270A of the Act for misreporting of income